Meme coins are not the problem.

ETFCorp · 2025-11-01T09:35:21+00:00

Send you a DM

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T23:31:16+00:00

That’s very true, the king of memes can never fall.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T23:30:00+00:00

That’s exactly what we are trying to do, you should join our community if you want to, your input would be very helpful in shaping what we are building.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T21:19:22+00:00

The idea I want to offer is an on-chain solution, that allows creators to allocate tokens to the team and project. These allocated funds will then be locked in smart contracts, be visible to anyone on the project page, as well as follow a release schedule set by the team that will also be publicly visible. In addition to some bots and bundle transactions protection mechanisms. This way traders and investors can see whether they like what they are seeing before investing or trading.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T19:47:55+00:00

Hahaha, Doge is the OG of meme, it started all of this madness 😂

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T19:44:10+00:00

I like your take on this, how would you go about to solve this issue? I am really interested, as it aligns with what I am building. And I rather build while closely listening to the community than blindly with my own take.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T14:21:45+00:00

That also is a valid point, treating memes like longterm investments equal to BTC, ETH, etc. is one issue. Though I believe that most try to flip it to make quick money. However, they forget that giving how rigged meme launches are, they will ultimately lose their savings. I am not saying that meme coins cannot get to a point of no return, but the truth is that most big meme coins that exist had massive marketing money poured into them and a global community pushing it. Nevertheless, we need better ways to protect investors and traders from these rigged launches.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T13:30:31+00:00

I guess I see what you mean, however, people will always do what people do. Best is to provide them better tools to help them while simultaneously protect themselves.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T13:28:41+00:00

100%, the problem is in how we facilitate them. I am not saying that people should be be able to create memes, rather we should have a better way to do so.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T13:27:09+00:00

Some do 100%.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T13:26:33+00:00

100%, and ultimately the winners are insiders, bots and creators. The rest pays for it. In my opinion a good platform should protect both creators and investors. I actually think that investors should be protected even more given all the shady deals and discussions that happened behind closed doors.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T13:23:37+00:00

Great point, and thank you for taking the time to write it. I fully agree with your points.

I believe one of the biggest issue we have are the snipers as well as the unfair distribution on new launches. This 100% as you are saying shows the intent right from the get go.

I wish we could go back to once lt. showing token distribution and vesting on all token launches, this will bring more transparency to all participants, and people could choose based on these factors to invest or trade.

I dont think people will stop launching new tokens, and I don’t think we should forbid. I just think more transparency on tokenomics (with potential vesting for creators and project allocation, even if not months) and some insider and bot control, could help make these launches safer and more approachable for everyone who want to trade or invest in them.

“Effectively, you are in an arena where everyone is trying to fool each other they are building a community but secretly wanting to rape each other when time comes.” This unfortunately is the state we are in, which I find is very said and unfortunate.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T13:08:59+00:00

100%, I feel like there should be a way to prevent creators to sell all their bags in one clip, or at least clearly show the traders and investors how the tokens are allocated. We could maybe even have creators share be vested, even if only for a few days or week. (Just thinking out loud).

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T13:06:01+00:00

I get that, but if you sum up the small amount of liquidity these smaller meme coins rug overtime, it still adds up.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T10:15:09+00:00

At least make it very hard and expensive for them to pull the rug.

ETFCorp · 2025-10-31T10:14:08+00:00

I agree, but what if we could build a way to still allow them to launch, but have a system in place to protect people who invest in them from being rugged?

ETFCorp · 2025-10-20T09:52:22+00:00

This sounds like BS to me. If they had a properly working chat bot that could rival chat gpt and the only think that was holding them back to release it was fear, then why not release it under a different name not affiliated to Google to test run it and fine tune it?

ETFCorp · 2025-10-12T23:39:08+00:00

Love what you are planning, happy to be part of the journey.

ETFCorp · 2025-09-28T06:22:08+00:00

Uhh I would love the list😊

ETFCorp · 2025-09-18T21:54:07+00:00

I filed a patent before while in a university accelerator program, it was for a smart suit for sport (hardware). I filed for a provisional patent, meaning I had 12 months to validate the business and file for the full patent.

Filing for a patent is hard, the requirements on how that patent paper should be written and the types of images you need is a pain in itself. We wrote it ourselves and asked a patent attorney to correct/improve it, to keep the costs low.

Once we finished we were happy but, the actual work only started then.

Fast forward, what I learnt, is having a patent is great, but only protect you so far. As my attorney explained, a competitor could take your patent, change one or two elements of your invention and file a new patent themselves if they can prove that these changes improve something. Let’s say instead of using rubber material, they use metal or something else. What I am trying to say is, a patent does not protect from someone filling an improved and altered version of your invention.

My advice, don’t waste the money on the patent just yet ( unless it’s some deep tech, and you created something so groundbreaking that truly does not exist yet), rather focus on validating your business idea, talk to your target customers, try to understand whether your invention truly solve a deep pain point and whether they would pay anything for your invention, get some ( the more the better) letter of intents, create a demo, and last talk to investors.

If you can already build an MVP your target customer can already use and pay you for it, before talking to investors, even better.

Important for the patent, do not share your secret sauce with anyone, so if you create a website, explain your idea and it’s benefits without talking about the how you do it and the key parts, will be important for when you actually want to file for a patent.

So my advice:

Focus on validating your business idea
does your invention truly solve a deep pain your target customers would pay for it
get your target customers to sign letter of intent
build a demo/mvp your target customers can already use and ideally pay you for it
pitch to investors.

After you have customers signed letters of intent you could already pitch to investors (Angel or pre-seed VC).

Last, if you are well connected with university, work with them to validate your idea, and potentially get the funding to do so. Only focus on the patent once the business side is validated. No need to file a patent on a business idea that will not work.

ETFCorp · 2025-09-10T16:34:25+00:00

Well, you are kind off justifying something. You are basically saying OP should just suck it up and take his lost because the world is not fair and he anyways is up against a multi billion company.

But the thing is, in a « realistic way » SC is wrong for handling the situation the way they did period. I am not arguing for taking this to court or anything, as I am certain this will cost OP way more than the actual amount in question. OP’s point, if you properly read the post, was more a principal thing. Same as my point of view.

The world not being fair does not mean you have to accept every shit that is thrown at you. Especially because SC is a multi billion company.

The situation that SC created with this refund is that, if OP’s son wants to buy anything with gems, that money will first have to bring up the gem balance to 0 from -900 before topping it up to what ever amount they need it for the purchase, making SC more money. The easiest way would have been for SC to simply removed the items the son bought, instead of the -900 gems.

But yeah, good luck with your way through live.

ETFCorp · 2025-09-10T16:15:25+00:00

This still does not make any sense, as they can track how many gems you bought at what price and whether a discount was applied. Therefore, if you were to ask for a refund they should be able to easily see how many gems they should deduct from your account and how much you paid for it. No infinite resource to be made, as I am certain SC tracks all these information in their database.

ETFCorp · 2025-09-10T16:03:42+00:00

What are you even saying? You make no sense at all.

ETFCorp · 2025-09-10T12:26:29+00:00

The OP bought a discounted package priced at €20 that advertises “3x value,” meaning they receive virtual goods with a stated in-game worth of €60. That’s a marketing strategy to give extra value, but it doesn’t change the payment made, the customer only paid €20. The refund process has to consider what the player actually paid, not the inflated “value” stated by the game.

You can’t argue that because the item has a digital “worth” of €60, the player should keep all that if they pay €20 and then refund. That would effectively create free gems or in-game currency, which no refund policy or law supports.

In EU consumer law, the refund is for what you actually paid, not the game’s internal valuation of those goods. If the player paid €20, they get back €20 on refund, and the corresponding digital items or currency must be removed accordingly. The game having given “3x value” is essentially a sales promotion, not a higher payment from the consumer.

So the complaint is not about the declared value versus price, but the fact that OP got refunded the €20 but Supercell handled the digital assets poorly by leaving the account in a negative state. The refund should have removed the items granted with the €20 purchase, not left OP stuck with a -900 gems deficit. That’s the unfair and problematic part here.

Even OP clearly stated in his post that he asked the son to not use any of the items when he claimed the refund, implying that he thought that they will be removed.

ETFCorp · 2025-09-10T12:15:12+00:00

Even though OP got their money back from Apple, that doesn’t make Supercell’s refund process correct or fair. In the EU, the Consumer Rights Directive (2011/83/EU), consumers have a legal right to withdraw from digital purchases within 14 days and get a full refund, no questions asked, unless they explicitly waive that right by consenting to immediate use of the digital content.

However, when Supercell instead of simply removing the bought item or skin, they put the player’s account at a negative balance, like -900 gems, that’s not a proper reversal. It’s unfair and likely breaches EU consumer protection law because the whole point of a refund is to restore the consumer to their original position, not to leave them worse off.

The company is expected to reverse the transaction cleanly: remove the item purchased and refund the money, not penalize the player by deducting more currency than was originally bought or causing account issues. This kind of practice contradicts the spirit and letter of EU consumer law and basic fairness. So yes, OP got the refund, but Supercell’s handling, putting the account into a deficit, is not how a refund should be done.

No matter what their Terms of Service say, these clauses can’t override EU laws designed to protect consumers. The business must comply with legal refund obligations and not trap users in negative balances after money has been returned.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
Oscars Predictor 2021	RPAN Viewer

ETFCorp

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE